The Case of Mr Hugo
Use of this short case study in an HRM examination paper.
Ditto
- Mr Hugo was employed as a purchase order clerk in 1983. The company introduced a Flexi-time scheme in January 1991. Staff were given a Flexitime key-card to insert into the Flexitime clock and so register arrival and leaving work (morning, lunch-time and at the end of the working day). Under the scheme, staff worked a 35-hour week. Outside core time, working hours could be chosen within certain limits between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm. In core time (10.00 - 12 noon and 2.00 - 3.30 pm) everybody, unless their supervisor authorised non-attendance, had to attend. The scheme ruled that "Lunch-break must not be less than 1/2 -hour."
Staff could build up credits (attendance more than 35 hours weekly) to a limit of four 1/2-days or two days a month. Credits had to be taken inside a month and no more than 7 hours credit or debit could be carried forward to the next month.
Abuse of the system would involve one member of staff logging in for another or by leaving the office after logging in and then returning to log out later on.
- On 3rd October 1993, the section head, Mrs. Chaplin, observed Mr Hugo taking only 13 minutes for lunch . She reminded him of the rule. There was no question of discipline.
On 10th and 15th October, the computer showed Mr Hugo to have left in the evening without keying out (i.e. he could have built up a credit for time between actually leaving and 6.00pm). He had arrived early at 8.00 am. Mrs. Chaplin inquired of other staff in the office about the time Hugo had left. They were reluctant to be specific. On this occasion Mrs Chaplin did not follow the matter up as there was no concrete evidence of abuse. She believed Hugo had left earlier and she did advise him in detail of the difficult decision his absent-mindedness had forced on her. She authorised manually the 2 1/2 hours credit for Hugo and wrote a memo to the personnel records office recording the events and this decision.
- Personnel records staff monitoring the scheme were aware of minor infringements of various members of staff, but their analysis and concern was not always fed back to supervisors. Breaches of rules, as shown by computer reports, were not always being followed up by employee counselling by line-managers or personnel staff.
- In the first week of November 1993, Mr Hugo was interviewed by the Assistant Departmental Manager and a Personnel Officer. The Assistant Dept Manager told him that, Mrs. Chaplin, was concerned about credit time he had accumulated in October. This showed a consistent pattern of short lunch breaks (6 being less than 20 minutes and the remainder less than 30 minutes). Hugo said "I eat my lunch quickly, come back and get on with my work".
The Assistant Dept Manager then presented him with information that on two occasions when having keyed-in he was seen outside the building. Hugo admitted to sometimes taking a short walk to get his lunch down. Earlier incidents in 1993 of visits to the Bank and being seen reading newspapers in office hours were raised with him. as observed and reported by Mrs Chaplin and others. The Assistant Dept Manager said a serious view was being taken of his conduct. He would be invited to a formal disciplinary hearing at which Hugo's union representative could be present if he so wished. A time and date was fixed.
- 6. Before this formal step however Mr. Hugo with the support of his union representative brought a formal grievance complaint before the Company Personnel Manager who saw them both.
Mr. Hugo complained that Mrs Chaplin was spying on him and had ridiculed him in front of other staff. The Assistant Dept Manager had harassed him at the interview and overall he was being treated much less favourably than other staff. He said that the Assistant Dept Manager had made scathing comments about Mr Hugo's dress, manner and work standards of which there had been no previous complaint.
The Company Personnel Manager advised Hugo. to follow the normal stages of the grievance procedure. This would involve him raising his complaint formally with the next line manager up i.e. the Department Manager. This Hugo agreed to do. The Personnel manager arranged the interview. However the next day Hugo handed in his notice and, as he had holiday leave still due, took this leave rather than serve out his notice.
The Personnel Manager wrote to Mr Hugo offering him the opportunity to reconsider and an invitation to an exit interview. It was Hugo's solicitor who replied saying that Hugo was making a claim to an Industrial Tribunal. The claim was founded on Hugo's view that he had been forced to resign by "management's over-bearing attitude and unreasonable, unequal treatment which was humiliating given his long, faithful service".
- An internal review between all the managers concerned concluded that the dismissal claim should be met properly at the Industrial Tribunal.
- Six weeks after Hugo left, the Personnel Department received the unfair dismissal documentation and heard that Mr Hugo's union officer would represent him. It was decided that the Company Personnel Manager and Departmental Manager would present the company's case at the Industrial Tribunal hearing.
HRM Examination 1995-96
Case Study Index
These case studies © were written for examination purposes by Chris Jarvis
URL: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~bustcfj/bola/cases/hugo.html